Minutes - 02-20-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Geoffrey Gledhill said that Mr. Combs, the owner of the property when it was rezoned to EC-5, was in contact with Mr. Wilson at the time of the rezoning. Mr. Wilson knew all about the rezoning. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page four, where it says, "October 14, 1996 - The issuance of the Hame Occupation Permit to Mr. Wilson is found to have been issued in error." Craig Benedict said that the permit was issued in error, it was appealed by a neighbor, the Board of Adjustment ruled on the error and said that it should not have been issued. It then went to court and it was eventually remanded back to the Board of Adjustment and the license was formally revoked. Harmony Whalen said that she had spoken to Mr. Wilson's attorney and Mr. Wilson is aware of this action. Mr. Wilson would like to settle this matter without going to court and have the County drop the case. Discussion ensued about the penalty. Craig Benedict said that the neighbors adjacent to this property have been inquiring about when this issue will be resolved. Commissioner Jacobs expressed concern that 30 days might not be long enough for Mr. Wilson to vacate his property. Commissioner Brown indicated that she would not support this because she knows for a fact that this property had been used as a mechanic shop at the time in question. Geoffrey Gledhill said that the EC-5 zoning district does not permit automobile mechanical repair work. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Chair Halkiotis to accept the administration's recommendation that the person in violation be assessed civil penalties at $100.00 per day if the violation does not cease and desist within 30 days of February 20, 2001. If the violation has ceased by March 22, 2201, the assessment of civil penalties will be waived. If the violation continues, civil penalties will be assessed at $100.00 per day beginning January 6, 2001, and continuing until the violation ceases as authorized under Article 23, Section 23.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. VOTE: Ayes, 3; Noes, 2 (Commissioners Brown and Jacobs) It was now 10:35 p.m. and the Board agreed to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. f. Sunrise Springs Subdivision The Board considered a preliminary plan for Sunrise Springs Subdivision. The subdivision consists of nine residential lots on a 22-606-acre tract. It is located along the west side of Sunrise Road (SR 1732) adjacent to and north of I-40 in Chapel Hill Township. Craig Benedict made this presentation. He cited the concerns as expressed by the County Commissioners at their August 15, 2000 meeting and October 3, 2000 meeting. Since the meetings in August and October, there have been no less than 10 meetings with the applicant, the applicant's attorney, one meeting with some residents, and a few telephone calls from some residents to try to come to terms with the issues surrounding this project. One of the issues is that the developer cleared trees prior to any approval by the County, which was improper. The administration is recommending approval with 15-20 new conditions. Public Comment Syd Alexander, attorney far the developer, pointed out that the brown area on the map is the 60-foot conservation easement, which tracks the course of the stream. Also, shown an the sheet that is marked 'C-2' is a reference that restricts any possible access from the extra lot to the main road. He made reference to the second sheet and the question about runoff and enhanced runoff resulting from this development. He said that the evidence shows that there would not be any enhanced runoff. Also, for the record, he would like to resubmit the information he submitted an November 17, 2000. Betsy Kraus asked if the developers could guarantee that the development would not result in any additional noise and Mr. Alexander said that clearing additional land would not create